The buzz about his potential 2008 candidacy has been growing for several months now, especially as the star of the early Republican favorite, George Allen, has dimmed. Given that prominent conservative evangelicals like columnist Cal Thomas and the Rev. Jerry Falwell have stated that Mr. Romney's faith should not be a barrier to the presidency, Mr. Romney might be the first Mormon candidate whom mainstream evangelicals can support....

[C]onservative Christians' opposition to Mormonism, while historically a reaction to Smith's violation of cultural taboos, is also rooted in theology....

The LDS church's professionalism and skillful image management worry many conservative Christians. The Mormon church has tried to position itself in the mainstream by conducting a careful marketing campaign....

For conservative Christians, this rebranding of Mormonism as a mainstream Christian faith is a threatening and duplicitous move, especially considering the church's high conversion and birth rates. They have continued their efforts to marginalize the LDS church. In October, Dr. James Dobson himself – considered by some observers the most influential figure on the Christian right – said on national radio that he doubted a Mormon could earn evangelical votes. Some view Mr. Romney's candidacy as the latest – and most aggressive – step in the Mormon PR campaign to convince Americans that Mormonism is just another denomination of Christianity.

"There is the perception that, if Mormonism is legitimized at that level, many American Protestants will become Mormon," says Greg Johnson, an ex-Mormon who now leads efforts in Mormon-evangelical dialogue.

Mr. Romney, who has balanced the Massachusetts budget, reformed health care and stuck to his conservative social beliefs, is aware of this perception. Over the last few months, he has made several efforts to meet with conservative Christians and convince them that he shares their most sacred moral and social positions – such as opposition to abortion and gay marriage – no matter his theology....

Romney has proven himself a competent executive, he is a red governor from a blue state, he’s a fiscal conservative, a health policy innovator — and he’s good looking in a generic all-American way. The one problem is that he is now, and always has been, a Mormon. This would and should be irrelevant, except that his primary campaign must necessarily appeal to the Republican base on evangelical Christian grounds. When a political party has become a religious organisation, as the Republicans have under Bush and Rove, it’s hard to nominate a heretic as leader. Mormons insist they are Christians but not many other Christians easily agree.

Many evangelicals are keen to look past the issue, arguing that private faith and public office are unrelated issues. But this is a little rich coming from people who believe George W Bush is divinely guided. And the more the actual doctrines of Mormonism emerge, the deeper the awkwardness could be. All humans can become gods? Jesus returned to earth after his resurrection . . . in America? Moreover, the secrecy of the Mormon leadership, its insistence on mandatory tithing, and accusations of cult-like practices are likely to stir at least some controversy among the very religious right whose support Romney badly needs.

Personally, I have no interest in someone’s private faith in his or her pursuit of public office. Romney, to my mind, should be judged on his public record. The trouble is: this is not what the religious right has come to expect in a leader. They look for a religious figure in a political leader, “one of them”.

There is going to be a lot to monitor on this story. There's the usual way social conservatives and social liberals import religion into their struggle, but the addition of a distinctive new religion is making everything old new again. It could get really ugly. And make no mistake: Sullivan's move is an ugly one. He doesn't like social conservatives and the way they use religion, and he sees an opportunity to drive a wedge into them by raising questions about religious doctrine and prodding people to feel hostility toward Mormons. He thinks this is justified because -- he asserts -- the Republicans have won power by styling themselves as a "religious organisation." They've used religion to their advantage, so they deserve to have it used against them. But stirring up hostility toward one sect? That is a dangerous thing that goes far beyond the targets you think you're aiming at.

IN THE COMMENTS: Shaun Mullen, author of the Moderate Voice post, drops by, hangs around, and eventually provokes me to say "Does Joe know you're screwing up his blog?"

I really don't understand this. Isn't the whole point of ending the politics vs. religion controversy to give unto God what is God's and unto Caesar what is Caeasar's?

Frankly, I could care less about a guy's religion. If Oliver Cromwell or Joe Lieberman or Brighma Young or Karl Marx or Thomas Aquinas promised me less domestic federal government socially and economically and a Jacksonian military, I would vote for that candidate. I might even wear a button.

And, Doyle: I don't think Sullivan is predicting so much as he is trying to make it happen.

Doyle wrote:How is Sullivan's "move" ugly? Why should he have to justify pointing out that there are significant theological differences between Protestants and Mormons?

Well, as Mr. Sullivan says, when you play by the rules of theoconservatism, you've got to take the consequences. He just can't argue it's 'Christianist' dirty pool to point out that John Kerry's views (and voting record) on abortion don't conform to Catholic doctrine, then turn around play the same game with Romney.

Sullivan is entitled to write what he wants, but it's equally fair comment for Professor Althouse to ask if he's being a little hypocritical.

Doyle: Have you ever taken even a cursory look at world history? It's quite shocking.

Craig: I would also note that the attack on Kerry was that he tried to win favor by calling his attention to his religion but was not following his own religion. The attack on Romney is different. This is an attempt to weaken him by saying he is a member of a particular group and laying out the reasons why people should feel revulsion toward that group. That is a terrible, terrible thing.

Nothing ugly at all about what Sullivan wrote. The Republicans have used religion as a wedge for almost thirty years. They have defined American religion in the most narrow terms, and have millions of members of their party who don't even consider Catholics to be Christians. Only a partisan like "Althouse," as opposed to the sober (ok, maybe not sober) Professor Ann Althouse would fail to recognize the truth in what Sullivan wrote.

Romney comes in with a slightly different faith from the rapture-longing Republicans, and Sullivan merely points out that the relgiously intolerant Republicans will likely eat their young over this. And Sullivan is the ugly one?

"Althouse" and Ann Althouse have spent too much time by themselves on this family weekend, and they are no longer thinking straight.

By the way, speaking from Massachusetts, Romney's track record here was atrocious, from either side of the political spectrum. Aside from raising every fee and tax he possibly could, his only other accomplishment was abandoning the office and losing the GOP's grip on the governor's office for the first time in 16 years. He is now trying to make up for it with a last-ditch effort to use the "activist courts" to disrupt gay marriage before his term expires.

So screw religion. The salient point should be what a dismal failure Romney is. However, while "Althouse" and Ann Althouse were sleeping, the Republicans have taken three decades to ensure their ranks are as intolerant of religious difference as possible.

Romney being a Mormon is going to be talked about in all kinds of ways if he runs for president whether anybody likes it or not. It is a bit different after all.

I find something else interesting. When his father George ran for the Republican nomination way back in 1968 he certainly felt no impediment about being Mormon. I remember very little buzz at the time about that issue. Instead it was his comment about having been "brainwashed" about Vietnam that killed his candidacy.

If he had actually won the Republican nomination I'm pretty sure that him being Mormon would've been on the front burner in the general election, and not in his favor.

Sullivan driving a wedge? Does he have a large evangelical following about which we've not previously heard?Personally I think the questions he raises are legitimate and intriguing. Evangelicals are, by definition and practice, an exclusive group. Having been one for several years, I watched as my particular church eyed even other churches in our denomination suspiciously--not to mention other denominations. And, yes, we considered Latter Day Saints (which, I believe, they prefer to be called) as among the unsaved. So, whether or not it's right or appropriate that they do so, evangelicals as a group certainly have the potential to reject Romney based on his particular faith; and Sullivan's public pondering of this possibility is not inappropriate. And if you continue to posture that it is, please share with your readers who, in your opinion, has the right to raise that question. Or do you think it is the question that should not be named?

Charles -- It sounds like you know about Romney's actual, you know, record as a governor. That is a far more important issue than his underwear. (I can hear MTV now, by the way, a la Clinton in 1992: So, Mitt Romney, boxers, briefs, or the garment?)

As for Catholics and conservatism, let's see here: the leading luminary and by all accounts founder of modern American conservatism is an ardent Catholic. Extra credit for reasonable discourse if you can name this person.

Sullivan has been writing about American politics and religion for a good 20-25 years or so. But if one goes back and reads his earlier writings (when he was editing the New Republic for example), one can't see this visceral hostility to religion in the public square.

This evolution is a recent one. The sources of which (and it seems to me to transcend his homosexuality) remain for others to determine.

As to Romney and sectarian strife. My guess is that he'll be criticized more from the secular left and MSM than from evangelical Christians conservatives. The Religious Right is a more diverse (or less monolithic) group than most critics realize.

Seven, there is nothing conservative about Bush and the majority of today's Republican leaders. I would be thrilled if Bush were a real conservative. He wouldn't have made any of the stunning blunders that he has.

So why the quiz?

My point was about religious tolerance. There are indeed millions of evangelicals who do not consider Catholics to be true Christians. So who knows that they think of a Mormon?

Those who believe that George Romney's membership in the Mormon Church was not "an issue" might want to peruse contemporary accounts from that time. I definitely recall questions being raised about the church policy at that time forbidding anyone not white to serve in higher positions in the church.

I didn't vote for Romney because he tends to be too far to the right for my taste. Religion? Doesn't matter to me. End of discussion. I didn't vote for his opponent last time either, because she was a State House hack from Central Casting. A foretaste of '08?

I grew up in a heavily Mormon area of Southern California, and part of my wife's family spent several generations in Utah. They were Catholic Scottish and Welsh miners. We both have the same attitude toward Mormons based on longtime, actual experience of living among them. That is, they're great people. We admire the social structure of the LDS church and the way they take care of their members. We have found that when government structures have heavy Mormon representation things tend to be well-run and honest. We do not, however, agree with Mormon theology. There are many, many religious groups whose theology we disagree with, but we live with them and their members in daily life, and I, for one, have never suffered in this country because of anyone's religion.

Mormonism is not now a threat to the Republic. At one time it was considered to be. Read the history of how the Mormons were chased from pillar to post and their leader eventually assassinated. They migrated to Utah under almost Biblical conditions to escape intolerance in the United States. The United States shortly then came to them, and the LDS church eventually reconciled its practices with mainstream American life.

I fear latter-day Jacobins much more than the Latter-Day Saints. And titles that include words such as "the Mormon Question," make me shudder at what Final Solution the author may have, however unconsciously, in mind.

Everyone Else: When pundits and commentators slice and dice the electorate on religious backgrounds, it looks impressive, but is really hogwash. The Republican party is not just a bunch of evangelicals voting their beliefs. Think about it. Do you think there might be some Catholics voting R because they are against abortion? Maybe there are some Jews who vote R because they see the Dems distancing themselves from a pro-Isreal policy? And how are the pundits going to use their Ginsu knives to divvy the Buddhist and Taoist voters?

Sully is full of it -- and it's nonsense. Romney's rise or fall will be based upon his track record and exposition of policies that he backs. I remember seeing a lot of papist quarters in the lead up to the Kennedy/Nixon contest. I don't think they made a difference one way or the other (the Chicago machine made the difference that "counted").

Professor Althouse sez: 'But stirring up hostility toward one sect? That is a dangerous thing'

That is only too true, but you're rather late to the party, Ann.

Charles Giacometti sez: 'There are indeed millions of evangelicals who do not consider Catholics to be true Christians. So who knows that they think of a Mormon?'

I know. Calvary Chapel, which claims to be the fastest growing sect in the country, has a program, 'To Every Man an Answer' (on a radio near you, I guarantee, wherever you are) that goes into great detail about what evangelicals think about Mormons.

If I had to reduce it to one word, it would be: devils.

I would correct Giacometti, though. They do not consider Catholics are not 'true Christians.' They do not consider they are Christians at all.

And they specifically and emphatically preach that evangelicals should cut themselves off from non-Christians, even members of their own family.

I have no opinions about either Sullivan nor Romney, but to leap on Sullivan on Nov. 26, 2006, for mentioning this just shows that Professor Althouse hasn't been paying attention.

But it will not get really ugly when it is GOP primary time. There may be some rough and tumble between Romney and McCain, but nothing worse than what Bush did to McCain or McCain's "Catholic Voter Alert" against Bush.

But when it comes time to have the general election campaign? If Romney has made it that far? Then it will get really ugly-- with the Clintons leading the charge.

Ann and Reader_iam are on to the real story here, I think, but I'm not too sure the people commenting are interested.

Having read Sullivan for far too long, I've come to the conclusion that he believes that conservative white Christians and islamic fundamentalist terrorists are morally equivalent.

At the same time it is apparent that he wants to foment a war among white Christian conservatives. Words will have to do, as they appear unlikely to accomodate him and prove their moral equivalence with the terrorists by shooting each other.

Please disregard my prior comment. Hit the wrong button and can't delete it because those little trash cans don't appear here (for me at least, probably due to my using the beta version of new blogger.)

From all of my experiences, conservative Christians (of all varieties) spend 99% of their time in Church trying to be good people.

And the Churches spend 99% of the time helping them become good people. They assist the elderly and the poor, provide food and shelter for teenage mothers, and generally just try to help out.

Believe it or not, we don't spend time denouncing homosexuals or smiting secular liberals or organizing to get those atheists out of our community.

The only time the press covers what we do is when they report on some doctrinal dispute or when an idiot like Pat Robertson says something stupid. Because, frankly, reporting on a church helping the elderly get to dialysis just ain't going to get ratings.

Romney's religion should be a non-issue. All the funny underwear stuff will be hashed out before election. Plus, Romney can actually say he is doing his best to ensure polygamy does not become legal by blocking the gay agenda that would open the door up to that "consenting adult in the privacy emenation of a penumbra" activity.

Sullivan's effort to introduce Romney's religion as a wedge issue in the Republican Party is a desperation measure by a man who sounds less like an astute scholar and more like an hysterical, aging Queen each day. Republicans know they cannot survive as just the political arm of a Southern Evangelist orthodoxy and cast off their solid Western and Northern supporters...being hit by a 2X4 that showed them losing considerable support in 2006 by overfocusing on the Southern base.

Romney is actually on great grounds to be shown nationwide as a respector of rule of law by taking on the extra-Constitutional actions the Mass Legislature did on behalf of wealthy and powerful gay activist interests - to block the people's referandum on gay marriage.

It will be very interesting if the voters in Mass get a chance to weigh in on gay marriage. Those pushing the gay agenda have been equally determined to not let the American public have a say in the matter. It is amazing how many in the public resist the Elites and media telling them how much they need gay marriage to prove they are not "stupid, racist, Christianist, homophobic evil people". Or perhaps it is just because of the strident and defaming language directed at straights that they have become alienated from supporting the gay agenda..

No state has had more pressure than Mass from gay activists and gay agenda sympathetic lawyer's calls. It would be fascinating to see what the citizens think and how they would decide the matter.

Frankly, I'd be more interested ine Teresa Heinz's tax return. After all, when Geraldine Ferraro ran, her husband was forced to reveal his return. And I don't think we should encourage double-standards for female candidates.

"Jesus-freak vs. Jesus-freak" ?Hmmm -there's that sweet tolerance again. Well, it is open season on those who are openly "Christian".

The US has had religious presidents forever. But suddenly it's not ok for (specifically Christian) individuals to have personal religious beliefs &/or moral convictions based on those beliefs.

Homosexuals are pissed off. Religious presidents are the only thing standing in the way of their happiness. So a pure secularist president would be much better, even though pure secularists tend to be soviet style micro-managers over the rest of our lives.

Let's not forget that the theocrats on the right (including George W. Bush) have already said that atheists are unfit to serve as President. Heck, even his father said that atheists shouldn't be citizens.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

So now it's war. After all, George W. Bush wanted to be known as a divider, not a uniter. He has gotten his wish.

What comes around goes around.

I think it's a wonderful thing if we start exposing the Mormons and loony things in which they believe.

When a Democrat President is openly Christian it's: Natural. Forgivable. Understandable.

When a Republican president is openly Christian it's:Fundamentalist. Christianist. Theocracy.

When a Democrat president says "God bless America", it's fine.When a Republican president says "God Bless America" it's shocking and irritating, disgusting and perverted, and somehow breaches the line between church and state. It's Scary!

I used to really enjoy listening to Andrew Sullivan and reading his blogs. Even when I disagreed with him, I felt he made strong arguments in favor of his positions. Now he is pretty much a one issue voter who is completely disingenuous about it and acts like he still holds the same positions on various issues.

Furthermore, some of his praise is downright silly. After Milton Friedman died, he put a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger and wrote that Arnold was one of the last Friedman devotees in the Republican party. I suspect that this had less to do with Arnold's governing and more to do with his support of gay rights. Arnold has increased spending in California and increased the minimum wage. While Arnold may or may not be an excellent governor (I haven't examined his record in CA) he doesn't appear to have held true to libertarian principles.

In addition to unequivocally supporting politicians who are supportive of gay rights (regardless of their positions on any other issues), Sullivan is completely merciless in his attacks on any politician or blogger who disagrees with him on that issue. It is disappointing that one of the most intelligent and articulate voices on public policy, has turned into an attack dog.

"Nothing ugly at all about what Sullivan wrote. The Republicans have used religion as a wedge for almost thirty years. They have defined American religion in the most narrow terms, and have millions of members of their party who don't even consider Catholics to be Christians"

Your missing a certain historical & philosophical depth and breadth. People of faith and church goers generally split their tickets between the two camps prior to 1968. It was the cultural revolution of the 1960’s that drove believers into the republican camp. The new left was/is so radical it cant posit a sexual ethic, thinks abortion is a constitutional right, and insists on destroying marriage as archaic & patriarchal (or have you not been to college)

Regardless of long standing theological differences, church goers will continue to vote for the party that’s not dominated by the advocates of radical social change.

Republicans didn’t have to court religious voters, - the democrats drove them into that camp.

People are overreacting. If some Mormons want to enter the public spotlight like Romney, of course the whole Mormon enterprise will come in for some knocks. Welcome to my (gay) world. The Mormons have some ideas others find funny, including the underwear.

Sullivan posted a complaining e-mail about his sacrilegious/disingenuous/whatever underwear post. If everyone got off the hook by screaming sacrilege, what kind of world would this be? (oh. um...) Some people are going to be easily offended. On another topic on this blog someone named Ann said something about how 'those who are most easily offended shouldn't be the ones driving the outcome.'

Harry Eagar: "Professor Althouse sez: 'But stirring up hostility toward one sect? That is a dangerous thing' That is only too true, but you're rather late to the party, Ann."

You are flat-out wrong and should apologize. I've been consistent about religion on this blog. I happen to teach a course in Religion and the Constitution, and I'm very aware of what I am saying on this subject. Perhaps you've been stirred up by that idiot Glenn Greenwalk and think you understand something about what I've been saying for the last three years. But you don't.

A number of people apparently consider it shocking and intolerant that some evangelical Christians don't consider Catholics to be true Christians. Isn't it equally shocking and intolerant to be what Andrew Sullivan and some of the commentators here claim to be, a conservative who doesn't consider George Bush to be a true conservative? Or is having doctrinal standards, and using them to exclude people, shocking and wicked in religion, but commendable in politics? I don't understand.

Ann Althouse said..."This is an attempt to weaken [Romney] by saying he is a member of a particular group and laying out the reasons why people should feel revulsion toward that group. That is a terrible, terrible thing."

I would be concerned that such a rule - even if warranted in this particular case - is execessively broad. Pointing out that a particular politician is a member of a group which holds certain beliefs -- the Mormon Church, the Stonecutters, People for the Soviet Way, Catholics, the Federalist Society, whatever -- and stating that the belifs espoused by that group are unacceptable doesn't seem especially troubling. The principle assumption that it makes - that is, the most likely point of failure - is that the person's membership of a group expresses fealty to their ideas. An attack under that rubric may be erroneous (for example, because the group may not hold perfectly homogenous views, e.g. the Federalist Society), it may presume too much (for example, that a Catholic actually follows Cathlic doctrine) or it may certainly be couched in unacceptable terms, but I'm not sure that it's an invalid method, per se. If Romney -- who is undisputedly a charming, charismatic politician, and by all accounts a very nice guy -- were a member of the Communist Party, and Sullivan laid out all the reasons why the views and history of the Communist Party were anathema to America at large, would that be out of bounds? If I'm nominated to a Court of Appeals judgeship, would it be out of bounds for NARAL, PFSW, the usual suspects, to run commercials pointing out that I'm a self-confessed acolyte of Justice Scalia's views, and to ask if one really wants someone who looks up to the author of various scary quotes that they'll flash on the screen? And if that's okay, what's the difference?

Ann - I think you're hoping that this is an idealized world like 1960, where a person's religion is supposed to be irrelevant.

But that's only fair if both sides play by the rules. If Romney were running against a candidate who was an atheist, I can guarantee you that he would be running thousands of ads pointing that out.

And the best defense is a good offense. So it's best if we start attacking him now, before he is the nominee.

Personally - I think anyone who regularly practices a religion is not qualified to hold elective office. That's my personal opinion and I'm allowed to have it. None of our Presidents for the first 100 years ever went to Church. And we had better Presidents back then.

The "questions" about Mormonism are very reminiscent of the "questions" about Catholicism that were asked with Kennedy. Read accounts of the West Virginia primary.

The questions sound much more ominous -- "Will he have to do what the Pope says?" than the answers do.

To be honest, I always wondered about how significant the anti-Catholic bigotry was in the Kennedy campaign. It fits so neatly into the Camelot mythos -- merely by existing, the campaign is a blow for progress! There's always a question of whether these things were actually on the minds of voters, or if they were just epiphenomena -- the Andrew Sullivans of the moment, chasing a wedge issue that never materialized.

This reader will pass. Thanks anyway, Shaun. Completely separately from Ann, I have also come to the conclusion that "The Moderate Voice" deserves the "so-called" modifier. Y'all are quite predictable, and about as moderate as I am, only generally from the other side of the aisle.

Shaun,As you will surely have noticed, Ann linked to your post in her original post, so yes, readers can judge for themslves. Do try to avoid dragging through the mud the good name that Joe built up for TMV, by careless reading, would you?

The church closest to the White House is also Episcopal, and has been attended at least once by nearly every president since James Madison. St. John's Episcopal Church, just across Lafayette Square north of the White House, and built after the War of 1812, is one of about five sometimes referred to as "the Church of the Presidents".

I'm hardly homophobic. I don't hate gay people in the slightest. A dear and old friend of mine is gay. We disagree on political issues, but I love him dearly. Can you point out a spot in my posts where I admit my religion or stance on gay marriage? (no, you cannot.)(and my comment that Sullivan is a “Homosexualist” is fair given the context of his “Christianst” dialog.)

If pointing out your idiocy and Sullivan's religious bigotry gives me a low IQ score on the downtownlad sliding scale- fine by me.

You strike me as another cookie cutter lefty who hates religious conservatives and your daddy. So? Doesn’t that make you the bigot?

I must remember the leftist definition of "Homophobe" or "Racist" = someone who does not agree with the leftist paradigm. check.

As a resident of Massachusetts I have watched Romney closely over the past 4 years.

I don't think his religion will be as much of a problem as his outright flip flopping on social issues.

When he ran for governor he was ardently pro-choice, like many northeast republicans-if he wasn't pro-choice he would not of likely won. All of Massachusetts other republican governors over the past 12 years were also pro-choice.Also, he was a strong supporter of gay rights when he ran for governor. He was endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans, walked in the gay pride parade and in his acceptance speech spoke specifically about equal rights for all gay people.He was pro-choice and pro gay rights only 4 years ago.Now, he is trying his hardest to be the social conversatives darling. He is now strongly pro-life and can't stop talking about gay marriage.His obsession with the gay marriage issue is so 2004. This seems to be the only issue he constantly speaks about.He is trying very hard to run away from "Massachusetts values" and I don't think the public will buy it. Especially given his previous statements regarding abortion and gay rights. I am sure there are pictures out there somewhere of him at the Gay Pride Parade in Boston which won't help him in many parts of the country. Bonus points for any of the "op research" people who can find him at the parade with a Tina Turner and Cher impersonator.

Fine. What I meant to say was that none of the Presidents for the first 100 years were regular Church-goers. Yes, they probably stepped foot in a Church. But there's no evidence that they actually believed the hooey-balooey they talk about in there. And I'd be interested in one of those Presidents that you could classify as a true Christian - i.e. believed in the divinity of Christ.

I've been in Churches for weddings, but I'd call you a liar if you started telling people that Downtown Lad goes to Church.

Ann has replied to be me privately, but has not posted her response to me in the comments section of her own blog. Or maybe Blogger is acting up again. Oh, well.

Anyhow, my advice for Ann remains the same: Stop flailing.

I discussed some of the issues that Mitt Romney will draw, most of them frivolous and unworthy of discussion, in the context as a preview of Things to Come, not a knock on the Church of Latter Day Saints or their underwear.

Well, this kind of inter-religous conflict stuff is why I am a secularist when it comes to government. Cons, who always brag about their "superior" knowledge of History, seem to forget all the strife that occurs between different faiths in Christianity alone. The 30 Years War anyone? Just recently someone from the "Word of Life" mega rich church, which owns aboout half of Schroon Lake in Adirondacks of NY, torched a local protestant church down the road in Pottersville over doctrinal differences. Religion, with the selected us vs the heathens nad infidel mindset, is inimical to democracy!

That was a pretty juvenile comment you just left. How old are you anyway? By the sound of it, about 10, I'd guess.

When Joe Gandelman was sole proprieter, I thought the Moderate Voice was well-written, balanced (as opposed to strident), and interesting. I visited it daily, or more often, for quite some time.

These days, the site lacks coherence, most of what seems like a multitude of contributers sound more like the shrill hawkers of patent medicine of a century ago than anyone interested in a genuine discussion of topics of today, and the writing, as you have just demonstrated, has greatly deteriorated as a result.

But one more thing. Downtown Lad tries to prove in this forum that people in the past -- in the United States, no less, a country founded by Puritans -- were less religious. This is ridiculous on its face, on a par with the history professor trying to prove that there were few guns in the past.

And the idea that a person's religion was irrelevant in 1960 is simply laughable.

Downtownlads uncomfortable truths, that our founding fathers were not braindead religious dupes like our Chimp in Chief, always upsets there carefully constructed web of lies. Our founding fathers were not radical atheists too, they realized that the bulk of stupid people needed to herded in line with all the fire and brimstone stuff. No one in the rest of the world takes any of right's religious nonsense seriously. They want a gun toting, SUV driving, ass kicking, meat eating, pervert and bum hating Jesus. They spend all day talking about war and power and guns then think they can fool people with all the pro-life hypocrisy, Maybe Cons are too stupid to appreciate irony. They want religion as long as it supports their ingrained obseesive prudery. After all, almost all religious leaders opposed the War in Iraq, but did our pious Chimp take notice?

Sullivan has been banging this drum for quite some time now, starting about a week after the president announced his support for the Federal marriage protection thing. The problem is that the two groups he is equating are NOT equal, and never have been (nor are they likely to be at any time in the near future.)

Witness the response his post about Mormon underwear (complete with pictures) generated. He had a rather polite e-mail explaining why the post was offensive, and a request to remove it. If he had posted pictures of Mohammad, Islamic fundamentalists would have issued a fatwa against him, and the same leftists who are cheering him on would attack him for his insensitivity towards other cultures.

Shaun: You really don't come across as moderate at all. As for replying to you privately rather than here, I saw your private email to me first and didn't yet see that it was also a comment here. What I responded privately was:

What "ends" are you referring to? Preserving civility and opposingbigotry? Yes, I did. You should be glad I wasn't harsher to you as Ibelieve was justifiable.

And why are you acting like I didn't link to your post? People can goover there and see how far you went. You went seriously wrong when you posted the photograph.

Downtown Lad thinks everyone is either venomously anti-gay, or has a low "IQ," whatever that is, or both.

... while being shockinly underinformed, often, about the subject matter about which he makes sweeping statements.

None of our Presidents for the first 100 years ever went to Church.

What a hilariously shallow, unnuanced and imprecise statement.

The kicker: DTL apparently doesn't even read the sources that HE cites. Infidels.org talks about Washingon's own diaries, and entries that indicated church attendance on occasion.

Of course, Washington wasn't an ardent churchgoer, much less believer, as we would use that term today. But he likely wouldn't be in DTL's spiritual/political/philosophical camp, either.

In any case: The original italicized statement was just stupid, whether it came from a man of vastly elevated IQ or not.

John Adams--who surely would have opposed the religious right*, at least in my view--was Unitarian, and active in his congregation in Quincy, Mass. One would assume that would imply attendance on at least one more occasion than ZERO. ** Should we go on?????

(*Deist; didn't believe in the divinity of Christ; didn't believe that God intervened in individual lives.

**Seemed to have believed that regular church attendance was good for developing the moral sense.)

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will."

John Adams, with regard to Tom Paine's "Age of Reason."

Of course, it's always important to remember that Adams was a man of politics.

To answer the question in the topic heading: "Can Romney endure...", the answer is "only time will tell.

However, the answer to the unspoken question: "Will he be surpised by the crap that is thrown at him?" ... the answer is "no". I suspect the only thing that he will be surprised by is what someone fails to throw at him that he expects to see.

After my last post, I looked up his history to see where he served his LDS mission. Apparently it was Paris, France. Now I know the difficulty I faced in serving a mission in a predominately Catholic country (Chile) but the difference is Chileans LOVE Americans (or, at least, did in the early 1980's).

Oh, and Shaun, be a good boy and thank Ann for the traffic she's sending your way today.

The "the potential hesitancy of Protestant Republicans to nominate a Mormon" exists only in Sillivan's mind.

And I'll second everything Theo Boehm said in his 11:52am comment about theological vs other differences.

As long as I'm in AOL mode, I'll also second also what SMGalbraith said: we don't have the slightest interest in getting atheists out of the community, we want to get them to think (or re-think) about God and Jesus. (And yes, I agree with him about Pat Robertson being an idiot, too.)

As to my statement about Shaun's "private email." I mistook it for private email for some reason. Why is Shaun acting like that was some nefarious move of mine? He's a really strange character. It seriously detracts from Joe's normalcy image.

Perhaps the guy wanted that email public so he could flaunt it around like a red badge of courage.

And where does this "Annie Pooh" crap come from? Before I noticed his picture, I thought he was just a juvenile. He looks older than my father, so maybe he's just an old-fashioned misogynist. Then again, who cares? It only helps his reputation, such that it is, for his name to be mentioned at all.

You need to know that the blog comments all come to me in email form, mostly with a "no reply" email address. When I see email that doesn't have a "no reply" address, I tend to see it as private email.

My preference would have been to write the response here (and to expose the emailer's writing).

I’ve always found this argument about the Founding Fathers rather silly. Its like some revisionist attempt to re-write history.

They were (for the most part) natural law deists philosophically while publicly professed Christians. The natural law refers to a world designed by the creature in the natural world and discernable to man through reason. The Deist advises a higher power/ intellect who set this watch in motion. This, approach of enlightenment thinking rested well philosophically with a Christian God of intervention and salvation through providence.

It’s a approach not very different than most people who back away intellectually from that revealed in scripture but still wont take the leap into nihilism.

Whatever the “actual” beliefs of our Founders (we may never know because they {as most of us}went to their graves questioning) We can be certain it was a mile wide of any post modern secularist – nihilist /counter cultural anti-moralistic gay babble.

I bet Joe does not think he is screwing up the blog at all. I would further guess that Joe mainly agrees with Shaun. Remember what I said about "Partisan Moderate." Nearly all, from my experience, of those who call themselves moderate are as far left or far right as most liberals or conservatives. They just wrap themselves in a centrist-sounding label to try and claim the majoritarian mantle.

The moderate voice is a liberal blog. It may be center-left, but it is definitely left of center, consistently.

Gerry, I do remember what you said about me and I didn't appreciate it then. You have called me or insinuated that I was a liberal a number of times without ever visiting blog. http://holdthesenate.blogspot.com/I am pretty clear about my opinions on my blog and in my description of the blog.

Please visit my blog before classifying my opinions. I furthermore don't appreciate you lumping me in anyway with Shaun at the "moderate voice".

If it is any consolation, partisan moderate, I was not grouping you in with folks like Shaun, I was grouping folks like Shaun and Joe in with folks like you.

As for if I have visited your blog, I can't say that I have found any compelling reason to want to. Are you saying that your opinions and writing style are significantly different on your blog than they are in comments on other blogs? If so, why would that be?

No, I am saying that you would get a better idea of my politics from the blog as many of the subjects I have commented here are not on political issues. Furthermore, since you have either misinterpreted or not read most of my postings, you might gain a better appreciation for the nuances of my arguments:) Give your obviously rudimentary knowledge of politics, you might even learn something:)

It is obvious that you persist in name-calling and labels at the expense of actually looking for evidence. You are under no obligation to visit my blog, but I would appreciate it if you didn't attempt to label me until you did.

And yes it is fairly clear that you have not read most of my postings as well.

"It is obvious that you persist in name-calling and labels at the expense of actually looking for evidence"

Dude, or dudette, you chose a label as your screen name. It might be a little too late to be concerned about having labels attached to you. You chose one for yourself, and based upon the opinions you have expressed, I have disputed it. I think that if one takes a liberal position a vast majority of the time, and rarely takes a conservative opinion, that makes one a liberal, even if that person chooses to call themselves a moderate. And when one does so with unabashed partisanship (or is that an inaccurate self-chosen label as well?) then one shouldn't whine when challenged.

Gerry says, "if one takes a liberal position a vast majority of the time, and rarely takes a conservative opinion that makes one a liberal."

Gerry, please name me all the liberal positions I have taken. Anyone who goes to my blog and reads the description of my blog, http://holdthesenate.blogspot.com/will realize the absurdity of Gerry's claim that I am a liberal.

Gerry, ironically, you actually provide strong evidence against your point, "Nearly all, from my experience, of those who call themselves moderate are as far left or far right as most liberals or conservatives".

The fact that you believe that I am a liberal when I specifically state on my blog that I am a Republican demonstrates how far to the right that you actually are.

I guess in your warped sense of the political spectrum, anyone who is to the left of Alan Keyes is a liberal. In that case, I plead guilty.

I'm surprised the comment thread has gotten this deep without anyone noting that, when Ted Kennedy was in trouble running against Romney in '94, the Democrats didn't hesitate to make an issue of Romney's Mormonism:

I agree with Wolfe, but I think it's not just Republicans who are sharpening their knives for a Romney run. Democrats gleefully smeared Romney when he ran for the Senate against Edward Kennedy in 1994. Capitalizing on Romney's leadership roles in the church -- he was president of 14 Boston-area congregations -- the media trotted out a succession of accusers, some anonymous, who asserted that Romney and the Mormons were antiabortion, anti-single mother, and anti-gay. Of course, those comments could be made about almost any mainstream faith in the United States.

Kennedy's nephew Joseph, then a congressman, gave a speech asserting that the Mormon faith excluded blacks, which it does not. Little Joe then apologized publicly, ensuring that the allegations played through a second news cycle.

Good call, that was my mistake... that was terrible wording. It's just that "I mean no disrespect" doesn't summarize Sullivan's response very well, because he used that line to specifically refer to the photo issue.

As for the trogdor/"trolldor" thing: I, like (I assume) many of your readers, avoid Glenn Greenwald because his commentary often descends into irrelevant personal snipes. You aren't helping your case by imitating his style.

As for if I am 'far right', I have already said that there is a strong possibility that I am the most conservative poster in the comments here on Althouse. To that regard, I guess I plead guilty. That said, I have also said that the opinions I have expressed here, and the opinions I hold, are every bit as moderate as the opinions you have expressed here. I stand by that assertion.

again, wrong.......our founders were conservative christians and our constitution was based on natural law - try reading some David barton who is not only brilliant but is gifted with a powerful memory and can spontaneoulsy recite about every early document associated with the Federalist papers or our constitution. Just search David Barton and visit his site.

This discussion makes me all nostalgic for the olden days, you know, the l960s, when we were debating that if Jack Kennedy got elected POTUS, would he take his marching orders from the Vatican or the Constitution.

As it turned out, JFK got his marching orders from his nether regions, just like Bill Clinton.

So I guess the lesson here is that everything old is new again. I wonder if the NYTimes was as hysterical about JFK being a papist as they are about Romney's Mormonism? Doesn't matter. the Times is swiftly becoming a fringe publication anyway.

If Oliver Cromwell or Joe Lieberman or Brighma Young or Karl Marx or Thomas Aquinas promised me less domestic federal government socially and economically and a Jacksonian military, I would vote for that candidate.

"I love the Constitution of this land. But I hate the damned rascals that administer the government." -- attributed to Brigham Young. :-) ..bruce..

Oh, I don't know copying someone else's screen name and then listing nothing under your profile so you could try act like an internet bully. Furthermore, I wasn't trying in this case to do anything other than establish that Gerry was mischaracterizing my politcs. BTW, my previous post was sarcastic in nature although I guess in retrospect I shouldn't have expected someone of your intellect to realize that.

Something to ponder from my blog partner, Callimachus, who has researched this topic extensively and writes often about history in general and our founders in particular:

"One Sunday morning, as President Jefferson was walking to church service, prayer book in hand, a friend accosted him and said, "You going to church Mr. J. You do not believe a word in it."

Jefferson replied, "no nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. TheChristian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Goodmorning Sir."

Besides everything else, what's funny about the "underwear"? I'll grant it's a little old-fashioned looking, but it's a tee shirt and boxers for crying out loud. Observant Jews wear prayer shawls, many devout Catholics wear scapulars, Tibetan Buddhists often wear red threads representing an initiation, Freemasons wear aprons during rituals. About the only religious group I can think of who don't wear special ritual garments are Gardnerian Wiccans, and that's because they don't wear anything for rituals.

Professor Althause, I haven't read your blog for three years, just a few months. And I have nothing to say, today, one way or the other about your opinions about religion or even religion in politics.

Perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of your post, which I took to be about sectaries declaring unbelievers unfit for public office.

I just had my research assistant, Mr. Google, do a check. I find no posts of yours about that subject connected to the search words 'Calvary Chapel' or 'evangelical.'

There are people in this country who have been reading other people out of politics for a long time based on private religious opinion -- Reagan's antipathy to atheists is well known. I am old enough to remember people questioning whether a Catholic could be president.

As far as I can tell, this was a non-issue for you until Sullivan brought it up. I promise you, it has not been a non-issue for the Assembly of God or Calvary Chapel or a number of other cults I could name.

I'd like to throw out a new bone here. I'm wondering if the popularity of Stephen Covey (a Mormon) might have helped the Mormon image too? Eminently reasonable, good character and self-management, agreeable to any faith perspective, and de-emphasizing/disregarding any theological differences there may be.

Downtownlad's bizarre claims about religion and the Founders just amaze me. There were some politicians of the time who were theologically pretty liberal for that period (Jefferson, for example)--although today they would be the conservative wing of churches such as United Methodist or Presbyterian. Jefferson, for example, was such a liberal that he proposed replacing the death penalty for sodomy with castration.

However: if you look at the constitutions drafted by the various states during and after the Revolution, it is pretty clear where the bulk of the population stood about religion. Most state constitutions either directly excluded non-Christians from holding public office, or granted the legislature authority to limit holding office to Christians, and in some states, only to Protestants. Massachusetts' 1780 Constitution went so far as to not only allow the legislature to pass mandatory church attendance laws, but actually required the legislature to do so.

I've gathered together a collection of quotes from state constitutions, from state constitutional conventions, from Congressional debate, that will make Downtownlad's brain explode. This was a profoundly religious nation, and whatever Jefferson and Madison might think in private, both attended church in the District of Columbia on a regular basis--church services that were held in the chambers of Congress.

Repeatedly, Congress passed laws that clearly demonstrate that the First Amendment's establishment clause meant something substantially to the people of that time, than it does to the ACLU. For example: Congress by statute provided for one section of each township in Ohio Territory to be reserved for support of whichever church the majority of the township selected. I also quote from the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 which shows that "establishment" had a much narrower meaning than the ACLU's misinterpretation.

One thing I've noticed about leftists is that they just make stuff up. They just pull stuff out of the hat and say – 'What I say is a fact because I say so, it's convenient to my argument and because I want it to be true.' If a thought pops into their head, suddenly, magically, it becomes historical truth. This phenomenon is fairly common among the Air-America left.

One thing I've noticed about leftists is that they just make stuff up."

Well, let's be careful. Among academics, just making stuff up is more the exception than the rule. Michael Bellesiles just made stuff up, and apparently, so did Ward Churchill, to suit the political agenda that they were promoting. They can get away with this for a while, because the academic community lacks sufficient political diversity to spot the outright frauds.

What is the bigger problem isn't "make stuff up" but the emphasizing of certain facts, and leaving other facts out that might render the argument less persuasive. This isn't really lying, but by leaving facts out, it turns what should be a scholarly paper into a polemic.

Now, there are a scholars out there who have sufficient integrity that they don't let their current political beliefs drive what they find. They make an honest effort to present all sides of the historical evidence. But increasingly, the outright frauds (like Bellesiles and Churchill) and the misleaders have become major forces in the history profession. Realistically, what's the alternative? Academics would have to admit that the pursuit of truth isn't necessarily coincident with their political goals.

According to reliable sources, the Mormons have donated vast sums to pro-PLO Bir Zeit University: over a half-million dollars in 1976, over two million in 1979, and a new library in 1984. Other Arab communities and institutions in Judea and Samaria have also received large contributions from the Mormons.

Nafez Nazzal, a member of the PLO and professor at Bir Zeit U., directs courses at the current Mormon BYU training center at Kibbutz Ramat Rachel. According to former teachers at the center, the students are getting an "unbalanced picture of Israel."2 Attempts to present a more objective perspective were rebuffed.

All this seems to indicate a shift away from professed support for Israelhttp://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/israel_mormonism.htm\

Clayton, Again, you make great points. I think it's called "half-truths".

I was not attempting to paint with a broad brush, merely stating that the Air America types are into their own false reality. Don't believe me? Try listening to Randi Rhodes sometime. The half-truths and lies flow like gravy on Thanksgiving. (ie: Did you know the majority of our nation's troops voted for Kerry?)

As for ideological diversity on college campuses - indeed, it does not exist.

You've certainly stirred up some deeply held emotions and silly name-calling.

Romney shouldn't be held any more - or any less - accountable for his religous beliefs than any other candidate.

He's in the process of switiching from an abortion rights supporter so he could be elected in Massachusetts, to an opponent of abortion so he can win the right-wing vote in Republican primaries. I don't know how that fits into his religion but it shows that Mormons can be flexible when it comes to electoral politics, just like the members of every other religion.

It always amazes me when I come here to read the liberal posters who insist on thumbing their noses at Ann for straying from the party line.

It's clear that Ann wants to be a Democrat. She's acknowledged that on several occasions. She's supported and voted for Feingold, for gosh sakes.

She's a liberal on social issues, probably (I'm agnostic) is more inclined to favor a pro-interventionist economic approach recognizing the shortcomings of the free market. Okay, she's hawkish on defense but that comes from 9/11.

So, do liberals try and win her over? Woo her with flowers and nice talk?

I wanted to comment on Alexandra's claim that Mormon support for Israel is weak. Do you have anything other than Ed Decker's organization for that claim? I mean, I've heard of biased sources, but they're about as even handed toward Mormons as the PLO is towards Israel.

"Calvary Chapel, which claims to be the fastest growing sect in the country, has a program, 'To Every Man an Answer' (on a radio near you, I guarantee, wherever you are) that goes into great detail about what evangelicals think about Mormons.

If I had to reduce it to one word, it would be: devils."

And they specifically and emphatically preach that evangelicals should cut themselves off from non-Christians, even members of their own family."

Mr. Eagar,

you are writing slander against Calvary Chapel, that I, as a member of a Calvary Chapel congregation, CANNOT let stand without a comment.

First of all, Calvary Chapel is NOT a SECT, nor is it a CULT. It is a non-denominational association of evangelical christian churches, started by Pastor Chuck Smith of Costa Mesa, who is most well-known for welcoming hippies and street people into his small church in the 60's, playing a part in the creation of the 'Jesus Movement' of the late 60's and early 70's. This led to the start of contemporary christian music, which has now become a huge industry in its own right.

Check out Calvary Chapel for yourself folks, (and Mr. Eagar)!

http://www.calvarychapel.com/

Do not believe slanderous words printed by someone who appears by his comments to be quite bigoted!

Mr. Eagar, you have claimed that Calvary Chapel is a cult which discourages its members from associating with non-christians, or Catholics or Mormons. You have ZERO basis for making that statement. Your reference to a radio broadcast that mentioned the FACT that Mormons do not believe in the same Jesus that orthodox christians do PROVES nothing about anyone's bigotry, except your own. If you can't distinguish a real theological distinction from prejudice, then I repeat again, it only demonstrates the extent of YOUR prejudice.

For your benefit, I am posting here the complete statement of faith of the Calvary Chapel I attend. Not all Calvary Chapels have exactly the same statement of faith, but they are all very similar, marked by their brevity. You see, Calvary Chapels make a point of NOT focusing on denominational or doctrinal differences, which may come as a surprise to you. Read on, and make up your own mind if this statement constitutes the beliefs of a 'cult':

Calvary Chapel has been formed as a fellowship of believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our supreme desire is to know Christ and to be conformed into His image by the power of the Holy Spirit.

We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ.

We believe that the only true basis of Christian fellowship is His (agape) love, which is greater than any differences we posses and without which we have no right to claim our selves Christians.

We believe worship of God should be Spiritual. Therefore we remain flexible and yielded to the leading of the Holy Spirit to direct our worship.

We believe worship of God should be Inspirational. Therefore we give a great place to music in our worship.

We believe worship of God should be Intelligent. Therefore our services are designed with great emphasis upon teaching the Word of God that He might instruct us how He should be worshipped.

We believe worship of God is Fruitful. Therefore we look for His love in our lives as the supreme manifestation that we have truly been worshipping Him.

I can buy the argument that it isn't a cult, insofar as it lacks the charismatic leadership that tends to be the hallmark, but how is it not a sect? It seems to be such almost by definition ("a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination; any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine"). Or are you dissenting because you think "sect" is a term conveying a certain opprobrium?

It seems to me -religious organizations- can be treated differently than belief. When the two become conflated, as with the LDS (or Scientology or the Catholic Church) things get complicated. I don't care about Romney's ancestry, but if he didn't SCREAM in protest when the LDS was trying to convert my great grandparents (who died in the Holocaust but apparently in Mormon theology this isn't a problem), I find that relevant.

90% of these comments, at least, are way off. The whole 'Mormon' issue is a canard, and based entirely on the Left's ludicrous, cartoon idea of what the Christian Right really thinks and believes.

If two exactly equal conservatives were running, maybe Romney's religion would make a difference. However, if conservatives, Christian or not, have a choice between Romney and McCain or Guiliani, they will go with Romney. Much less if the choice is between Romney and H. Clinton or Obama.

The Left, committed to the idea that purportedly right-wing Christians are incredible, mindless zealots, is clearly raising the Mormon issue because they hope to derail the most prominent conservative in the field right now. And this is again predicated on their childish boogey-manning of the Christian Right: "They are super-bigots! If we keep their tiny brains from forgetting Romney is a Mormon, they will vote against him, because they that's the way they think!"

In the end, if Romney gets the nod, the Christian Right will vote for him to be President--and *then* the Press will say it was solely because they hate woman more than Mormons (because they didn't vote for Clinton instead) or black people (Obama).

The idea that they simply voted for the person most aligned with your political beliefs, with matters of religion or sex or race pretty much being non-factors, will be instinctively discounted. Because no matter what the (such as it is) Christian Right does, it has to be for an eee-vil reason.

Sullivan is asking a perfectly legitimate question; will right wing evangelical Christianists who consider Mormonism to be a cult embrace Romney as a candidate? Given their willingness to work with the Reverend Sung Myung Moon I suspect they will be able to overcome the cognitive dissonance in Romney's case too. Denial comes easy to religious ideologues.

Thanks for so quickly illustrating my point. It's not 'cognitive dissonance' to vote for the candidate for political office who comes *closest* to representing your political viewpoints. Evangelicals actually 'get' that they aren't voting for who runs their local church, but rather the country.

Why is that so hard to understand? Is it because such common sensical and completely obvious flexibility fails to comport with your rigid, doctrinaire conception of "religious ideologues"?

The Left, committed to the idea that purportedly right-wing Christians are incredible, mindless zealots, is clearly raising the Mormon issue because they hope to derail the most prominent conservative in the field right now

Except the fact that we are on a conservative blog, reacting to a blogger on a moderate blog, talking about pictures posted on a conservative blog, about a conservative candidate.

Whom on the Left are trying to derail Romney? You just made all that up, didn't you.

Sullivan. (A moderate? Please. He abandoned moderation some time ago.) And the fact that you consider this a "conservative" blog just shows how out of the mainstream you are.

The main point is, this is much ado about nothing. Go and ahead and convince yourselves that those narrow minded 'conservative Christians' will run off a cliff before they vote for a Morman. When all is said and done, the vast majority of them that would have voted for Romney if he *weren't* a Mormon will vote for him anyway. And not out of 'cognitive dissonance.'

Why does the Press and left-ish pundits and bloggers harp so much on Romney being a Morman? Not because they care, they assure us. No, supposedly it's because this will matter a great deal to evangelical voters.

It won't, though. The idea that it will is a phantasm born of crude stereotyping of social, especially religious, conservatives.

But then they're poor, dumb and easily led, don't you know? Much like the benighted souls forced to join our military.

Sullivan wrote: "And the more the actual doctrines of Mormonism emerge, the deeper the awkwardness could be. All humans can become gods? Jesus returned to earth after his resurrection . . . in America? Moreover, the secrecy of the Mormon leadership, its insistence on mandatory tithing, and accusations of cult-like practices are likely to stir at least some controversy among the very religious right whose support Romney badly needs."

Sullivan's prejudice is evident form the distortions in his description of Mormon beliefs. Mormon leaders aren't "secret", they just live in Salt Lake City. If Mr. Sullivan wanted to meet them he could arrange an interview, and they all live in regular homes scattered around the area and shop in regular supermarkets and drive regular cars. Tithing is not "mandatory". The only person who knows a member's tithing status in his congregation are the bishop who heads the group, since all donations are made in sealed envelopes that are mailed or passed to the bishop personally, not during services.

Sullivan's "accusations of cult-like practices" is disingenuous. He passes on the gossip without wanting to be blamed for spreading it. He is so unspecific that the reader is left to make up his own wild imaginings, which has been the case throughout the persecutions of Mormons for 150 years, where the fantasies and fears of every person who could make a buck off of hying the fear of Mormons, including journalists, professional clergy and politicians, ascribed to Mormons every weird belief or behavior they had ever heard of, the more lurid the better. The fact that those fantasies have nothing to do with the sober-sided Mormons who make BYU the most sober campus in America has not detered those who profit, like Sullivan, from creating targets for prejudice.

Sullivan making fun of the idea of Christ appearing after his resurrection raises the question, does Sullivan believe in Christ's resurrection, and so is making fun of Mormon beliefs on the same basis he would make fun of any Christian's belief in the resurrection? Since the New Testament includes several references to Christ's post-resurrection appearances at various locations, including his ascension from the Mount of Olives just before Pentecost, what is theologically problematic for a Christian in believing Christ could appear anyplace He wanted to on the earth He created? Mormons believe Christ made a post-resurrection appearance to people who lived somewhere in Meso-America--around southern Mexico's Chiapas State and Guatemala--NOT within the US of A. Exactly how that is less likely than his making post-resurrection appearances in Judea and Galilee is not explained by Mr. Sullivan.

As for the Latter-day Saint belief in the potential for human beings to become like God, it is an idea that is called Theosis and that was part of the doctrine of the early Christian church in the First Century and is quite actively preserved today within the Orthodox churches (which my mother, a former Russian Orthodox member in Japan, attested to), though for unknown reasons it has been neglected by the Roman tradition and its Protestant offspring. The Orthodox writings cite numerous references in the New Testament and the early Church Fathers, such as Irenaus' famous couplet, "God became man [in Christ] so that man could become god." C.S. Lewis understood the New Testament as promising that those who were redeemed through Christ's atonement would become shining beings whom we, in our present state, would be tempted to worship. He said that Christ's injunction in the Sermon on the Mount to "Be ye therefore perfect" is "not theological gas", and that He offers the sole means for us to fulfill His commandment. Those who reject the idea reject the teachings of Christ and John and Paul and Peter about the reward that awaits the faithful.

The point is well made by many of the commenters that the so-called enmity between Evangelicals and Mormons is being hyped, NOT by dedicated Christians, but by secularists who hate the idea of ANY religious people having political influence, and thus want to provoke interreligious warfare so that religious people are forced to retreat from the public square.

While some Evangelicals are intolerant of any religion that differs from their own, secularists are particularly intolerant of Mormonism, because it particularly affirms the reality of God, angels, and divine action in the modern world of technological wonders that were supposed to awe all religious believers into embracing materialism. Secularists like Sullivan are especially perturbed when religious belief does not interfere with the ability of believers to be outstandingly successful in the realm of politics, which secularists feel should be free of the taint of religious believers.

I grew up in Detroit and was part of the Mormon congregation that worshipped with the Romney family.

Watching them for all those years as a child and a teen, and then carefully observing the various articles written about Mitt Romney, I can attest to anyone interested that he comes from a rock solid wonderful family, and has a perfect understanding of Free Market Capitalism and Constitutional Government.

I plan to vote for Romney if given the chance, and hope that he or someone like him is lined up ready to fight the Hillary/Obama train wreck that is gaining speed even as I type.

All I can say for Andrew Sullivan and those who think like him and write like him is that it would be a powerful thing for him and all of those who feel afraid and concerned about the idea of a mormon being president to spend some quality time on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints web site reviewing the various doctrines and beliefs that are held up for anyone to review.

http://www.lds.org/

We have nothing to hide, and as private spiritual people who hold certain aspects of our religion away from the public eye, please do not confuse keeping sacred practices and ordinances holy by not sharing them with the public with anything that smacks of the occult.

Holy practices in sacred houses of worship called temples are the heigh of the mormon religion and the most joyful side to my faith.

My husband and I just attended the Denver temple last week, and I shared a blog entry with several links about temples in the body of the post with my readers.

http://www.naturalfamilyblog.com/archives/000438.html

Again, take the time to review the public statements by our Priesthood Leaders. So much good information can be gleaned from these talks sharing the facts about what we believe and how we worship.